D 524 
I 0718 

Copy 2 



Delivered by the Rt. Rev. Dr. Charles Gore, 
Lord Bishop of Oxford, and Mr. George 
Wharton Pepper at a Luncheon Given in 
Honor of the Rt. Rev. Dr. Charles Gore 
at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Philadelphia, 
Mr. Joseph Widener Presiding, 



IP 



Thursday, October Thirty-first, 1 9 1 8 



Addresses Delivered by the 

RT. REV. DR. CHARLES GORE 

LORD BISHOP OF OXFORD 

and 

MR. GEORGE WHARTON PEPPER 

at a Luncheon given in Honor of the 

RT. REV. DR. CHARLES GORE 

at the RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL, Philadelphia 



Thursday, October Thirty- first 
Nineteen Eighteen 



MR. JOSEPH WIDENER Presiding 



COMMITTEE 



Mr. Thomas DeWitt Cuyler 

Mr. Samuel S. Fleisher 

Mr. John Gribbel 

Mr. George Wharton Pepper 

Mr. Eli Kirk Price 

Mr. Charles M. Schwab 



Mr. Wm. Ellis Scull 
Mr. E. T. Stotesbury 
Mr. John Wanamaker 
Mr. Joseph Widener 
Mr. James Willcox 
Mr. Charlton Yarnall 



Addresses at Luncheon in Honor of the Right Reverend 
Dr. Charles Gore, Lord Bishop of Oxford, who is in 
this country with the approval of the British Government, 
on the invitation of the National Committee on the Moral 
Aims of the War. 

Mr. Joseph Widener: Gentlemen, I am going to ask Mr 
George Wharton Pepper to introduce our distinguished guest, 
the Lord Bishop of Oxford. 

Mr. George Wharton Pepper: Mr. Widener and Gentlemen: 
I take it that I may say on your behalf that it is always with 
pleasure that we extend a greeting to a distinguished represen- 
tative of Great Britain, but that we take a special pleasure in 
extending such a greeting to the guest who is honoring us with 
his presence today, and in extending it to him at this particular 
time. 

Of all the venerated institutions of England, it sometimes 
seems to me that we Americans have a peculiar feeling for the 
ancient universities of Cambridge and Oxford; and if either of 
them can eclipse the other in the estimation of Americans, it 
is Oxford. Oxford drives her roots far back into the past; and 
the way in which she has persisted among all the changes and 
chances of this mortal life has sometimes seemed to me to be a 
symbol of that quiet, patient perseverance, undaunted by any 
obstacle which has brought it about in every European war 
that victory has ultimately perched upon the banners of that 
side for which the men of England have been fighting. 

And therefore it seems to me that I must be speaking your 
mind when I express peculiar gratification that we have with 
us today one whose whole life has been identified with the life 
of Oxford, one who has in no small degree been the source of 
inspiration of her sons, and one who is himself the embodiment 
of the Oxford spirit. His coming amongst us at this particular 
time, I venture to think, is peculiarly significant and happy. 

There are two convictions that are very deep and real with 
me. One is that nothing but a peace dictated by the victorious 
allies to a conquered Germany can make for rest to this tired 
world. And the other is a sentiment that is not so popular and 
that you will not applaud so much ; the conviction that Germany 
is today far from a conquered power, and that the hopes which 
are generally entertained here of an early peace on satisfactory 



terms, are entirely unjustified by the military events of the last 
month, or by the progress of internal events in Germany. 

On both of these points I have reason to think our guest has 
views of his own; on the subject of a dictated peace, and on 
the subject of the dangers of undue optimism in wartime, and 
I hope he will speak his mind. 

And, finally, let me say this: That his coming seems to me to 
be timely, because his nation, like ours, is face to face with great 
problems of the education of youth to meet the difficult days 
that lie ahead of us. The solution may not be the same in each 
country. In this country I am profoundly convinced that the 
militaristic spirit is not likely to be a menace within the life- 
time of any of us now living. Our dangers are of a different sort, 
and I am one of those who hope that our youth will continue 
to be trained in respect for discipline and respect for author- 
ity along those lines that are working out so hopefully with 
the men who have come under our system of universal service. 

But, whatever the system of training, we all believe that we 
are not going to accomplish that for which we are fighting 
merely by the adoption of systems or by the making of inter- 
national compacts. It will stand and continue to stand as the 
only hope for the uplift of the world, that there shall be a process 
of transformation and uplift of the individual man; and it is 
of the religious philosophy whose aims are nothing short of this 
that our guest is so distinguished an exponent. In taking my 
seat, let me say that there never was a moment when it was more 
important to bind closely the ties between the two great English- 
speaking nations. We must not allow emotion or enthusiasm 
over momentary contacts and associations to blind us to the 
fact that the ties between Great Britain and this country are 
going to be strained when we sit at the conference table. The 
conditions after the war are going to increase the strain and 
not diminish it; and those ties must be held if the life of the two 
great English-speaking nations is to be preserved. And there 
is no way in which any tie can be so effectually strengthened as 
by encouraging these personal and intelligent contacts, which 
always result in sympathetic understanding between strong 
men, when they really get an opportunity to know one another; 
and I know of no other man who can more hopefully establish 
such an understanding and more firmly bind us to the people 
of England than the Lord Bishop of Oxford. 



Address of the Right Reverend Doctor Charles Gore, 
Lord Bishop of Oxford 

Mr. Widener, Mr. Pepper and Gentlemen: I do not propose 
to follow the speaker over the very wide area of topics which he 
has touched upon, and I am afraid that his estimate of my abil- 
ities in certain particulars is very much in advance of the facts. 

But it is always delightful to anyone who comes from Oxford 
to feel the appreciation and warmth of feeling which the name 
evokes. Mr. Pepper did a bold thing in comparing Cambridge 
and Oxford, a thing which I would not dare to do. As I do not 
see any Cambridge men present, if you will promise not to betray 
me, I cannot forget that forty years ago when the first issue of 
Baedeker's Guide came out, especially for the use of American 
visitors, it was stated that no intelligent visitor would be content 
to leave the country without seeing the ancient Universities of 
Cambridge and Oxford, — but, if time presses, Cambridge may 
be omitted. 

But that, after all, is a matter that everybody would not 
agree to; and for my part, I never go to Cambridge without 
having my loyalty to Oxford severely shaken. 

It is a pleasure so great that I can hardly describe it, for an 
Oxford man to come to this country at this particular period. 
There are certain special reasons why I should feel thrilled to 
be in this famous city, partly because, as I have no doubt every 
inhabitant knows, the home of Penn is in Bucks. Few visitors 
from this city and State but find their way to the original home 
of the family; and it is my pride and delight to preside over the 
original from which you take your name. 

And also, if I may say so, it is a great pleasure to a person who 
is bred in Whig principles, and who was constantly blessed when 
he was young and told to be a good Christian and a good Whig, 
to come to the place of the Declaration of Independence. That 
is constantly supposed to be a rather sore subject with the 
inhabitants of my country, but I assure you I have been taught 
history by a very considerable number of more or less intelligent 
teachers, and when they concern themselves with that period, 
I don't know one of them that does not point out that the 
Americans were perfectly right in their controversy, and that 
indeed they were but asserting the principles which had lain at 
the heart of our struggle for independence, in our civil wars, 



the century before, and which have always been the very basis 
on which EngHsh liberties have been built. 

But, of course, it is the special circumstances of the moment 
that make it so thrilling an experience to come to America 
now. I have said it before, but I must repeat it, as very emphat- 
ically as I can, that no one who knows something of the history 
of your country and the diverse elements of the English race 
under which you are building up a great nation, can fail to be 
amazed at the degree of unity, in determination and enthusiasm 
in which in the east and west America is uniting itself in the 
cause of this war. I think it is something like a modern miracle, 
and many Americans have said to me since I have been in this 
country that it is actually a new experience to them that they 
have never before felt the pulses of national unity beating as 
they are beating now. 

Then, of course, as I feel all that is going on around me, I 
glow with the desire that as England and America are now 
co-operating in a great cause, so there should arise out of that 
co-operation, a fellowship of sentiment, the like of which has 
never existed between us. I was privileged to be in the senate 
some month or five weeks ago when the French Ambassador, 
Mr. Jusserand, presented those beautiful vases of china, as a 
gift from France; and he made a very eloquent speech in which 
he was bold to say that sentiment was the most powerful thing 
in human life. Then he described the sentiment which has 
always united America and France; and he named the name of 
the man who always in your country, I notice, elicits more 
enthusiastic applause than any name except among the greatest 
of your own statesmen — I mean the name of Lafayette. 

But, of course, during this time I was conscious that I felt 
and was even meant to feel, a little light of it. Well, now, I 
love France, and I always have, its literature and its genius; 
and I do not desire that that tie of sentiment which has united 
America to France should be in any kind of way either loosened 
or dimmed; but I do from my heart desire that out of the co- 
operation in the great cause which is now uniting England and 
America there should spring, as I fancy there generally does 
spring from co-operation, both among individuals and among 
the nations, the same sort of sentiment that has bound you to 
France. The President of the Senate defined the feeling of 
America toward France, on the occasion I referred to, as arising 



out of the sense that many nations have contributed to America 
since America has been strong and great and flourishing, but that 
France was the nation which was of assistance when America 
was struggling and weak. 

Now, we represent, of course, a great principle; and I fancy 
America and England have felt their need of one another and 
their dependence upon one another. I tell you we in England 
feel our need of you, and I never remember the kind of national 
sigh of relief such as escaped from us when we knew you had 
come in, and we felt there would be behind us the almost 
unlimited resources of America to accomplish what we had 
half done, when we were, as we thought, beginning to fail in 
the almost unaccomplishable task. We shall never forget the 
debt of gratitude, and what ever shall be the place assigned to 
America in the ultimate victory, I do not believe there will be 
any jealousy on our part. 

And then I have no doubt that you know, as indeed I have so 
constantly heard it expressed, the debt which you owe through 
all those weary four first years of the war to our armies as well 
as those of Belgium and France, and to our vast silent fleet. 
And it is this tie of mutual obligations in face of great necessity 
out of which I do look for the building up of a better understand- 
ing between the two great nations, such an understanding, 
rooted as it is, in the unity in large part of our language and 
literature, as I believe will be to the welfare of both the countries 
concerned and the whole world. 

I have been sent to this country, or brought to this country 
to speak about the moral aims of the war. That is my com- 
mission ; and certainly every day I live amidst the extraordinarily 
moving tidings that seem to presage victory in the immediate 
future, I feel the necessity of doing anything that lies in my 
power to keep in men's view why we are fighting, not merely in 
the background of their minds, but constantly prominent. I 
agree wholly with what was said just now, about the perils of 
an excessive optimism. We have had many disillusions and 
many disappointments in England, and I can see that in this 
country you are more naturally disposed to optimism than we 
are. It may be that the end is very close, but it also may not 
be. What I am, above all things, anxious for, is that Germany 
should understand, not that the end is close, but that we are 
determined with an unconquerable resolution that whether 



the end is close or whether it is far off, this war is going on until 
it ends in a defeat so signal that it must be acknowledged by 
all the world. And that it must discredit with its own people 
that military despotism which hitherto has ruled the destinies 
of Germany. 

Then, what are we fighting for — to defeat Germany, only 
why — ? And it is there that I think what has been so constantly 
said by our great statesmen needs to be perpetually pushed to 
the front in men's minds, that it is — and I am repeating the 
words of our statesmen of all parties, and I think the same would 
be true in this country — that this is a war against war; because, 
I am not at all convinced that the meaning of this has been 
adequately taken in on all sides. It means that there is no 
disaster conceivably so great as that this war should end in a 
consummate victory, in a peace never so satisfactory, dictated 
by the allied nations to Germany, and by them perforce accepted, 
and in a rearranged Europe, with boundaries — new boundaries — 
never so successfully drawn — and that the nations should then 
return, or their representatives, to their own homes leading 
the nations to build up again armies and armies against one 
another, and after a period during which they would recover 
from the exhaustion of the war, begin again to eye one another 
with suspicion and wait until another war should break out. 
Truly I believe that it is not an exaggeration to say that the 
very foundation of the slowly built-up civilization of Europe 
and of America would be imperilled. 

I remember reading Hilare B. Lock's extremely clever sketch 
which he published at the beginning of the war, during some 
excitement in England, in which he described so imaginatively 
say some 3000 A.D., the beginnings of the recovery of civiliza- 
tion — and which was looking back upon the total eclipse of 
civilization that had been in the dark ages which, I think, began 
about 1925, the dark ages that had followed peace after the 
nations that had talked about peace had done nothing to secure 
it, and had come back to their own countries and found them- 
selves involved in labor wars and troubled social conditions. 
Meanwhile they had been eyeing one another with suspicion 
and European wars had broken out, first in the Balkans, then 
elsewhere, then elsewhere; and finally there had been another 
European war and that had been too much for civilization, and 
the world had broken down. 

10 



It was very amusing, because it was very skillful; but I totally 
failed to be amused. I had contemplated the eclipse of civiliza- 
tion, as I read history, without any particular thrill because of 
being so far off from the empires that came so close to ruin ; but 
now it touched too close. I feel sure it is the wisest who, like 
our Lord Grey, do feel that civilization is at stake unless the 
nations can get rid of any such atmosphere and conditions as 
would cause them to use all the resources and time to build 
up armaments and armaments 

Now, if that is to be done, how is it to be done? There is 
only one scheme clearly before the world. It has been outlined 
in practically identical lines by statesmen in both parties amongst 
us, by Lord Grey and by Mr. Asquith and Mr. Balfour and 
others — Lord Price, a notable man, who has been notably to 
the fore in the matter; and in France by some of the best men, 
and the French Foreign office and our Foreign Office are working 
out the scheme in detail; and, of course, this country, your 
President has made himself its prophet, and as far as I can see 
there is no substantial difference in the matter between the 
scheme of your President and the scheme of Mr. Taft; and they 
are all enthusiastic about it. But constantly as I go about in 
this country I feel, as I felt in my own country, that people have 
not thought enough about it, and that it will not effectively 
come about unless behind the statesmen there is the enthusiasm 
of the people. 

Now, in England we have got the enthusiasm of the soldiers. 
Our soldiers who have been fighting these four years loathe the 
war. For them the gilt is entirely off the ginger bread. There 
are no pessimists in the world like the British tommies, no 
men in the world so determined that this war shall be a war 
against war; and on the whole I think our proletariat, our 
laboring people, with whom I have a good deal to do, I think 
they are absolutely solid on the subject. In speaking about it 
in this country I cannot but wonder whether the elements in 
opposition or not in somewhat strong force; and what I desire 
from my heart is not to seek to impose any thought of my own 
on people but to get people to really think about the matter 
and to see what is at stake. 

I thought that your President's speech of five weeks ago in 
New York was an epoch-making speech, because it defined with 
such precision the very elements of difficulty among the League 

11 



of Nations; because, if the League of Nations comes about it 
will be a new epoch. Hitherto the nations have fought for their 
own liberty — Servia, Italy, France and Belgium, and America; 
but each, on the whole, was helped; England helped Italy, and 
so on; France helped America, each fighting for its own liberty, 
and each maintaining a certain proud independence. We know 
very well with what pride you in America claimed and maintained 
your independence, and asked what you had to do with the 
squabbles of effete kings so many thousands of miles over the 
Atlantic. Now we have all found our mistake. The world is 
too small for this sort of independence. You have found it out. 
The means of communication have become such that you cannot 
separate yourselves even though the Atlantic separates you, 
the world has become too small ; and at this moment a new thing 
is happening, a new thing in the history of the world. That is 
to say, the free nations of the world are allied to fight not for 
the liberty of any one but for the liberty of the world. And the 
great problem of the weeks that are to come — as soon, that is 
to say, as negotiations begin, is whether this liberty is going to 
be maintained, which is one principle of the League of Nations. 
For you are to know that since the Renaissance the jurists have 
built up a theory of national sovereignty which was, if I may say, 
atomic, each nation free from any interference outside of its 
own borders. 

That was closely akin to the principle of individualism as 
regards the individual; and now the moment has arrived when 
there is a new and tremendous claim to be made upon the 
nations, namely, that as the individual must recognize that 
there is the individual right over the rights of property, so, 
over every individual right there is the welfare of the whole 
community, over every individual nation there is the welfare 
of the whole body of nations. That we do not intend that 
once again one nation shall be able to throw the whole world 
into confusion, to drench it in blood. 

Now, we are not such fools, I suppose, as to try to lead you 
to believe that Germany alone has entertained illegitimate 
ambitions. Why, those very secret treaties published by the 
Bolsheviki two or three years ago — what do they show? This, 
at least, that other nations besides Germany have been entertain- 
ing illegitimate ambitions of domination. You know the history 
of the Balkans. You know the history of European nations. 

12 



Are we such fools as to suppose that no other Nation is going 
to be drunk again with ambition? No. What we want to secure 
is the safety of the whole world against the ambition of one, 
that we will not depend again upon a system of alliances which 
will have the whole world trembling on the verge of war, and 
arming itself as if war was immediately possible. Yet it is a 
claim you make that it does demand a modification of that 
principle of national sovereignty. If you take the principles 
as agreed upon in England, by Asquith and Balfour and Grey — 
and by your President, point for point, with some modifica- 
tions — not what you call the reasonable independence of 
nations but just some modification in their international relations 
as regards the court of reconciliation, the court of arbitration — 
and in the court of arbitration about questions of honor, and the 
system of representation, which is a very difficult and delicate 
matter as affecting large nations and small — and the economic 
punishment to be employed against one recalcitrant member, 
and not to be applied except in the case of a recalcitrant member, 
and reduction of armies, the proportionable reduction of armies, 
and the international police — but all that is a large order, you 
see. 

I don't believe that the statesmen can carry it out unless 
they have got the real mind of the thinking public behind them, 
and I see a great tendency of people to say "Let us fight this 
war through, and then we can think about it." But, my friends, 
after the war, immediately after the war, the representatives 
of nations will meet, and peace will be drawn upon some basis. 
Upon what basis, then? Will it be drawn on the right basis? 
If not, for my part, I seriously do not see how our civilization 
can escape. The whole world will be driven into militarism and 
military preparation. Before our reasonable, practical statesmen 
make a proposal what I want is to see that the minds of men 
should be prepared for the sacrifices which are necessary for 
any such League of Nations to maintain, ensure and enforce 
peace. 

Now, I appeal to three things: I appeal, first of all, to the sort 
of hope which springs out of despair; because truly — I know Lord 
Grey's mind very intimately on this subject, and I do not believe 
there is any man who has been more versed in the inter-political 
situation in Europe, — if after the war the nations were to be 
left to build up armaments again against one another, and watch 

13 



one another with a jealous hostility, we cannot but contem- 
plate the future with despair. Unless Europe will make the 
step forward of recognizing a supernational authority, it looks 
as if the resources of science would serve for nothing but to 
destroy mankind. He does feel that the whole future of our 
civilization is in jeopardy. He has said it quite properly — 
I do not believe he is exaggerating one bit. But we are de- 
termined, I hope, that our civilization shall not perish. We 
are determined that the free nations shall not give themselves 
up to militarism. We are determined that the resources of our 
civilization shall not go to build us up — and now America — 
into great armed camps. And there springs out of that determ- 
ination a hope, a hope which is bred of despair, because if we 
are resolved at all, we are resolved that that shall not be. 

I believe that the greatest prophet of modern democracy was 
Joseph Mazzini. And among other reasons I believe he was 
great because he always insisted that no solid social fabric could 
be built upon an assertion of rights but only upon a recognition 
of duties. 

He told them that they must look to something above nations. 
And I believe it is solely the democracies that are taking that in; 
and I know something of our working people in England. I 
believe they are determined in that respect. The very last thing 
in the world I want is to see a war of sentiment between labor 
and capital, which shall coincide with the sentiment of 
peace, on the one side, and of military preparations on the other. 
I can conceive of no disaster in my own country — I don't attempt 
to speak for yours — greater than that in the years that are coming 
the laboring people should be for the League of Nations and that 
it should appear that the great interests have been against it. 
I think that would be more liable to bring revolution; but from 
my heart I hope there will be freedom and justice within the 
nation. I think it was Erasmus who in the Sixteenth Century 
noted first that war was always made between autocracies and 
democracies, and the common people are in favor of peace. 
And on the whole, in spite of exceptions, I believe that to be 
true. 

But I want to appeal to the Church of Christ. The Church 
of Christ has forgotten so ludicrously that it is a Catholic institu- 
tion, that it ought never to be understood to be in favor of 
National war; that if it is to be true in any way to Christ and 

14 



St. Paul it is to be a fellowship of all Nations, binding them 
together by a tie closer even than the tie of blood. We have 
been lamentably forgetful of our Catholic vocation, but I think 
we have an opportunity now. 

Now the League of Nations is far different from the Catholic 
Church, but I believe the League of Nations, based on the 
National and International fraternity of men, would be a step 
so far ahead in the awakening of entire Christendom that it 
will be not only supported by National interest but shall reach 
back to the establishment of International fellowship. 

So, it is upon the hope which springs in the hearts of all men 
for civilization; and it is to the great feeling of democracy and 
to the instinct of the Christian church I desire to appeal. But 
I am not in the least satisfied that at present the Church is 
fulfilling its duties. I think in my country the Church is simply 
uttering the ordinary feelings of the men on the street — legitimate 
feelings, but not the feelings of the Church of Christ, that this 
is a war against war, and that there is no way to secure us against 
war except the establishment of peace on a basis which shall 
make it free from dissensions and shall organize the League of Free 
Nations on the International, Supernational fellowship of men. 



15 



LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 



021 547 598 • 



